Is there any case law that supports a motion judge finding that a plaintiff has a genuine issue for trial over an unpaid bonus?

In addition, as mentioned, the motion judge concluded that there was a genuine issue regarding whether the plaintiff knew, or ought to have known, during his employment that he had a claim for an unpaid bonus for which a legal proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to obtain it. As mentioned, the motion judge found, on the evidence, that it would not have been workable for the plaintiff to sue the defendant while employed. The defendant would appear to be correct that the decision in Novak v. Bond 1999 CanLII 685 (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 808, referred to by the motion judge, turns on different language in the applicable statute of British Columbia. However, the motion judge clearly had regard to the language of paragraph 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Act in reaching his conclusion stated above. In the absence of case law that addresses the present circumstances, that is not an unreasonable interpretation of the operation of paragraph 5(a)(iv) in such circumstances. Therefore, I cannot conclude that there is good reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion of the motion judge that a genuine issue for trial exists regarding the operation of this provision in the context of an employment arrangement.